MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312569611 · doi:10.15581/016.55.3592

Dominique LE TOURNEAU, La dimension juridique du sacré, «Colección Gratianus», Wilson & Lafleur, Montreal 2012, XXV + 449 pp., ISBN 978-2-89689-063-7

2015· article· es· W4312569611 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alejandro Gónzalez-Varas Ibáñez

Bibliographic record

VenueIus Canonicum · 2015
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicClassical Studies and Legal History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La editorial canadiense Wilson & Laffleur presenta una interesante y amplia obra del profesor francés Dominique Le Tourneau sobre la dimensión jurídica de lo sagrado.Desde el propio título del libro se aprecia la intención del autor: ofrecer un estudio riguroso sobre la proyección que lo sagrado tiene en el Derecho canónico, y analizar las distintas dimensiones que abarca -en este sentido, la obra es exhaustiva-.Intentará fundamentarlo en la teoría del realismo jurídico y ofrecerá una perspectiva conceptual y de estudio más amplia que la que hasta ahora se había presentado desde el Derecho litúrgico.A lo largo de esta recensión se pretenderá explicar cómo Le Tourneau hilvana estas ideas.El autor parte de la estrecha relación que ha existido entre Derecho canónico y liturgia desde tiempos antiguos, pues ésta expresa de un modo particular la dimensión sacramental de la Iglesia, además de tratarse de actos públicos, celebraciones de la propia Iglesia que pertenecen a todo su cuerpo, lo manifiestan y lo realizan (c.837 § 1).Es, por tanto, necesario, que la autoridad competente organice la liturgia a fin de que, en efecto, se entienda como propia de la Iglesia y realizada en su nombre.Por eso el Derecho canónico debe estar en armonía con las expresiones litúrgicas.Pero no por ello se convierte en un instrumento de la pastoral, sino que se presenta -por lo anteriormente dicho-en un nivel constitucional primario (pp.194-196).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.243
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueIus CanonicumSame topicClassical Studies and Legal HistoryFrench-language works237,207